If Gore/LIEberman were in The White House from 2000-2008, would you support LIEberman for President?

[Ian David]

If Al Gore had been given his rightful place in The White House in 2000, and then gone on to win a second term, it is likely that Joe LIEberman would be running for President in 2008.

That also means he would be 99.9999999% likely to have our party's nomination.

If that were the case, would you support LIEberman for President in 2008?

[Wickerman]

1. I assume we would know a lot less about Joe than we do now n/t

[K Gardner]

3. oh, now that's spooky

I didn't plagiarize your post.. honest.. was writing mine as you were posting yours. GMTA?

[K Gardner]

2. Not just no, but hell no..

BUT... remember that if President Gore had served out his duly-elected 8 years, we would not be in Iraq, and maybe wouldn't have had the opportunity to know the "real" Lieberman. Maybe Lieb wouldn't have gone all holdin hands with the Dark Side and chyte; maybe he would have been a different man. ::shrugs:: Just sayin...

We'd be a different country. Hard to say, given time travel not possible, unfortunately :-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. I disagree that Lieberman would likely have our Party's nomination

Jimmu Carter came a hair's bredth away from losing the Democratic Party nomination to Ted Kennedy while he was the incumbent President, and Al Gore had a serious challenge from Bill Bradley after 8 years as a generally POPULAR Vice President.

We already have a model for what likely would have happened had Lieberman been our VP now running for President. His name is Ned Lamont. Lieberman lost the CT Democratic Primary for his Senate Seat. He only got reelected because Republicans abandoned their own candidate to vote for Lieberman. That would not have helped Lieberman win enough Democratic Primaries since in most of them only Democrats can vote.

[demnan]

5. Yes but just barely is what I voted

I never liked him. I don't care for religious sanctimoniousness. I think he hurt Gore's ticket.

[Orangepeel]

6. In that alternate reality, Lieberman wouldn't be the Lieberman we know

The US's situation would be very different after 8 years of Gore. Lieberman would seem like the pro-environmental candidate, not the war hawk he is now.

[IndianaGreen]

19. The Lieberman you see now is the real Lieberman

You never took the trouble to see him for what he was.

[aquart]

7. Of all the stupid, moronic polls I've seen at DU, this may be the dumbest.

[Ian David]

8. You're entitled to that opinion, but could you please enlighten us as to what you're thinking?

You've obviously got strong feelings on the matter.

Please share with the rest of the class.

[mtnsnake]

11. That's a strong statement. Don't you at least owe the OPer a reason why?

[Ian David]

22. Yeah. I've asked much dumber questions than that myself.

For example, my poll on Ann Coulter:

Anne Coulter
Topic started by IanDB1 on Apr-15-05 03:51 PM (23 replies)
Last modified by Moderator on Apr-15-05 04:23 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=3059607

[Bitwit1234]

9. Do you think he would have gone over to the dark side

if he and Gore were installed in the white house like they should have been. We will never know.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Lieberman was always on the dark side

The "D" that followed his name blinded many people to his true nature.

[JerseygirlCT]

21. He's really never been a prize

I've voted for him (the GOP has put up some doozies here), but never happily.

He's always seemed a waffling, weasily, moralistic jerk to me.

[Basileus Basileon]

10. Yes. I think Lieberman, absent a Republican president, would have continued to be

a domestic-issues liberal with moralistic tendencies, and would have had his hawkish ambitions muted. In that alternate reality, there would be few reasons not to support and vote for him.

[peacetalksforall]

12. I would hope that Gore would have worked even harder than Carter for

peace. Who knows how he would have stood up against what turned out to be a pnacer/baron mission to take earth resource control of the world.

His involvement with the environment might have allowed a genuine alternative energy push.

I believe Republicans in power for seven years and the pnacer regime gave Leiberman everything he wanted, except perhaps to do his thing from behind the veil of the Democratic Party. He has blatantly been able to be a war machine soapbox orator and a fearless Iran bombing pusher for the corporate, military, media war machine and their counterparts in Israel. A total disappointment.

I don't think he would have been able to have that power had he been VP. On the other hand, if alternative energy lobbyists had paid Leiberman, he probably could have swung that way.

It all would have depended on who the leaders were in Israel.

It is interesting that so many leaders around the world were as right wing as Cheney in parallel (but are now failing in some of those same countries). Who leads Israel makes a big difference in this country. Joe really connects with the war agenda. I sense no pursuit of peace coming from him. I now consider anyone who promotes the bombing of Iran a traitor to this country, by my standards.

I remember being estatic that there was a religious breakthrough for the P-VP combination. I was supportive even though I acknowledged that I didn't know much about him.

How ignorant I was. In looking at what I've learned about the DLC, I have a lot of doubts about the entire selection and match. I think Gore was more 'matched up' by the DLC than independent. Who knows for sure.

So who really knows which side of him we would have seen after eight years with Al Gore.

[Clintonista2]

13. What makes people most angry at Lieberman? It's his record on the war.

Had Al Gore been prez, there wouldn't have been a war, and thus people probably wouldn't be as angry with Lieberman as they are now.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. Probably not as many or as angry

But plenty of us haven't been able to stand the man for years and years.

[JerseygirlCT]

14. If he was the nominee, then

I'd hold my nose and vote for him.

But enthusiastically support him? I've never done that.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Joe Lieberman/Zell Miller in 2008?

A vote for Lieberman would have been a vote for war on Iran, torture, warrantless searches, rendition, Guantanamo concentration camp, and other abuses that he has supported.

I wouldn't vote for him if he were the only candidate on the ballot.

[JerseygirlCT]

20. I certainly understand that.

And I've chosen to vote for the other guy once wrt Lieberman already.

I'd vote for Weicker again in a heartbeat over Lieberman!

[IndianaGreen]

15. Gore would have been impeached on the aftermath of 9-11

The GOP has the balls to do what the Democrats either can't or won't do. We should have impeached Bush for his failure to prevent 9-11, an attack that he was forewarned about in the summer.

Lieberman would be the incumbent President and he would have attacked Iraq, Iran, Syria, and pretty much follow the power grab that Bush has.

I would not support Lieberman under any circumstances! Here is why:

Holy Joe is a shill for Israeli apartheid and imperialism.

Holy Joe supports a Likud-mandated policy for the US.

Holy Joe supports torture, warrantless searches, and he opposes habeas corpus.

[karynnj]

23. It would be an alternative universe, so everything would look different

Imagine that Gore never cut the terrorism budget, read and listened to Hart/Rudman and the briefing that OBL wanted to attack within the US. In past threats, securing the airports was high on the list. Assume they did this or the FL training flights or Missoui (sp?) reached the ears of those co-ordinating the effort. There would be NO 911.

Or, assume 911 couldn't have been avoided - Iraq still would not have been invaded. It is possible that Gore might have wanted the UN to push inspections - because it was clear that the sanctions were going to end (as they should have years before). Had Gore pushed them he could have ended up where Bush was in Feb 2003, able to declare that Iraq was complying and the no fly zones and the sanctions could be replaced with some form of monitoring.

Without Iraq, the US budget would be different. Gore would likely have tried setting much of it aside in 2000 in the lockbox. When the economy weakened, he would could either have temporarily stopped putting money aside or creatively used the money in the lockbox for loans to people and small businesses that needed it. On global warming - Gore would have been leading the world's efforts.

So on international and domestic issues, we would be in a different place. However, we would not know what we avoided. How would Leiberman be viewed? What if Gore had him address many environmental issues - Leiberman did have a 95% lifetime LCV record (a point lower than Senator Kerry). The picture of Leiberman would be someone who fought for cleaner water and air. Assume the Gore put him in charge of trade agreements - remember Gore was a strong advocate of NAFTA and Leiberman was very much a corporate business advocate. Then the picture is different. remember the election was not stolen and Gore might well be the Gore, who was the first DLC candidate in 1988.

It would be a very unusual run - 16 years of Democrats - likely all DLC. I voted for Bradley in 2000 because I agreed more with Bradley on issues and agreed that Gore was to some degree tainted by Clinton. So, I checked other - because it would depend on what Gore did and what Leiberman stood for at that time.

[LoZoccolo]

24. Yes, I would enthusiastically support him and campaign for him. n/t